Appeal No. 1997-3433
Application 08/395,548
lines 55-67). In response to Appellants' argument (Br9-10)
that Thessin (taken together with Microsoft OLE) does not
teach the transmitting step, the Examiner merely points to
statements in Microsoft OLE about putting the preferred data
formats on the clipboard (EA10). This does not respond to the
arguments. Appellants note that in a telephone interview,
"the Examiner explained that he interprets the transmission of
data itself in Thessin et al. as inherently transmitting the
format corresponding to the data" (Br9). The Examiner's
Interview Summary states that "[t]he Examiner clarified his
interpretation of the scope of data 'format'" (Paper No. 11),
but does not state what that interpretation is.
We agree with Appellants' arguments that the Examiner's
position is untenable for the reasons enumerated at pages 9-10
of the Brief, which need not be repeated. The last reference
to Orfali is not applied to show the step of "transmitting the
format(s)," but we consider its teaching.
The Examiner states (FR6; EA5): "Orfali et al. discloses
that an object generated by an arbitrary first application at
a first computer in the network may be incorporated into an
arbitrary second application at a second computer in the
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007